Others think Cameron didn’t sack IDS because no-one else wanted the job. But I
find this a bit of a stretch.

Granted, the DWP is in a mess: Universal
Credit is failing; the Work Programme works poorly; sanctions against people with a disease of disability are going through the roof; the system of Mandatory Reconsideration of appeals seems close to breaking point,
the Ministry of Justice recently billed the DWP £20 million after receiving a
tsunami of unexpected appeals against DWP decisions.

Practically anyone you speak to whose job
involves engaging with DWP officials talks of a department on the defensive, a
department in crisis even.

But this would not have deterred an
ambitious MP from taking Duncan-Smith’s job. Afterall, as Wintour and Robinson
argue, his policies are ‘popular,' aren’t they?

In truth I doubt the electorate has a clue
what IDS’s policies are. I doubt that Wintour or Robinson have a clue either.

What they and the electorate are familiar
with is the rhetoric about 'welfare reform' and claimants who rely some form of social security.
What the commentators really mean is that IDS is winning the propaganda war on
welfare policy.

But if you speak to people whose job involves engaging
with actual policy, they repeat the same message: the welfare reform
debate has become toxic beyond rational discussion.

And in large part this must be down to the
rhetoric of politicians. They should know better, but they indulge in it
anyway.

The problem when debate degenerates to this awful level is that ‘you
reap what you sow.'

I recently spoke to a charity that has persuaded the DWP to make concessions on aspects of its welfare to work
policies. The concessions, though small, seem hard won and
potentially significant. They were the result of sustained, but evidence-based, campaigning
and engagement with DWP officials. The concessions will not change the world
but may be a start.

But pressure groups and members of the
public rounded on the charity when news of the concessions leaked. Much
of the anger seemed to come from people who have borne the brunt of
‘welfare reform’ and the rhetoric that comes with it.

A member of staff at the charity told me he felt that this reaction, whilst
depressing, was understandable and predictable. The rhetoric of welfare reform
affects the way everyone thinks, he argued, including those worst affected by
actual policy.

The well has been poisoned. And despite the
charity’s efforts to change policy for the better, there is a disillusion,
to the extent that people have started to mistrust the motives of the charity itself.

Commentators who argue that Mr Duncan-Smith’s
policies are popular, should reflect on this.